MEET SEPP

The big news this month is not the fight between the two Democrats for the Oval Office, but the annihilation of a UN report on global warming, dutifully ignored by the media.

In the summer of 1990, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, a UN-sponsored committee) published a report Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. In March of this year a supplement to the original report was published. Both formed the foundation of the ''scientific'' basis of the 1992 UNCED Climate Treaty, signed by Bush at the Rio Jamboree. Both reports claim that the historical record is in broad agreement with the climate computer models, that the expected rise in temperature amounts to 0.3 deg. C per decade as a result of man-made greenhouse gases, and that the report is "the most authoritative and strongly supported statement on climate ever made . . ."

None of this is even remotely true; in fact it is contradicted by other parts of the reports themselves.

The IPCC propaganda has now been taken on by an organiza-tion we have met before and whose name and address you should carefully note for their ever improving and expanding work:

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP; CEO Candace Crandall), 2101 Wilson Blvd./#1003, Arlington, VA 22201, tel. 703-527-01310.

Edited by Prof S.F. Singer, SEPP has put out a counter-report by 15 world-renowned climatologists from several countries, The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment. Calmly and with dignity, they don't refute or demolish the IPCC report; they pulverize it to atoms. One of my favorites is two pages (Attachment 8) by Prof R. Bal-ling of Arizona State U., who points out the good points inside the IPCC report which have been completely ignored by the manipulators of the "Policymakers Summary," the only part bureaucrats ever read. Ringbound, est. 250 pp. typewritten offset, $27 ppd. (foreign orders $29) from the address above.

But that is not all SEPP is doing (we have previously met them as organizers of a Gallup poll and a call to reason on global warm-ing before the Rio Jamboree). Remember NASA's scare tactics about the rising chlorine monoxide (ClO) level in the atmosphere and Gore's gas hole over North America and Europe last February? As warned at the time, this is NASA's usual pre-budget panic making; after they took the money and ran, they lamely ex-plained that their dire warnings of an ozone hole did not come off because of Mount Pinatubo caused cooling. Of course, eco-lunatic Gore is squealing about the imminence of his gas hole to this day.

What I did not know then is contained in as yet generally un-published correspondence between SEPP and Rep. Dingell (D-Mich), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. NASA beat the alarm because the "record" ClO reading was l.5 parts per billion (ppb) instead of the 1989 reading of 1.0 ppb, both of which lie in the range of error and natural fluctuations. But measurements by balloon-borne instruments at lower latitudes in 1977-8 show concentrations of 7 ppb, which did not disturb NASA then, and about which it kept mum now, clearly so as to manipu-late their allocation of funds.

This is no longer scientific error or even bias; it is the NASA crooks filching your pockets (my comment, not SEPP's).